US Politics: The Arizona Immigration Law (Haddigan)

EA correspondent Lee Haddigan assesses the recently-passed, controversial immigration legislation passed in the southwestern state of Arizona:

n Sunday, the Phoenix Suns faced the Los Angeles Lakers in Game 3 of their semifinal series in the National Basketball Association. Beforehand, there was an interview with a special guest. A huge fan of the sport named Barack Obama appeared to discuss his plans if he were NBA Commissioner for a day and the future of the star player LeBron James.

Oh, yes, he also mentioned the recent immigration legislation passed in the state of Arizona, where Phoenix is located.

Obama elaborated on his contention, made on the White House lawn last Wednesday, that the controversial law is "misdirected".  Many in the Democratic Party go farther, charging that the Arizona State Legislature has passed a discriminatory law establishing "racial profiling" as a basis for determining an individual’s immigration status.

US Politics: The Tea Party and the Dangers of a “Leader” (Haddigan)

However, in concentrating on the civil rights implications of the law, its opponents have failed to consider the implications of what Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 actually intends to do.


Democrats had cause to voice such worries, until the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" was amended to address those concerns. Early drafts of the bill stated that law enforcement officers, upon “lawful contact”, were entitled to “determine the immigration status” of an individual. "Lawful contact" suggested a good deal of latitude for the officer to determine when they can approach an individual and ask for their residency papers. For instance, it could occur if the individual was the victim of, or witness to, a crime.

More troubling, however, was a provision in the original legislation, “A person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both: 1. Present on any public or private land in this State. 2. In violation of 8 United States Code Section 1304(e) or 1306(a).” Translated, anyone in Arizona without the correct residential documents on their person is committing the crime of trespass.

Under this preliminary version of the law, an officer could make ‘lawful contact’ (talk to?)
an individual on a public sidewalk or in their own home and, with “reasonable suspicion”, ask them to "determine their immigration status" as they might be trespassers in the state of Arizona. It's not exactly racial profiling, but nonetheless the law that could be construed as leading to the discriminatory treatment of Hispanics in Arizona.

That is not, however, the Bill that GovernorJan Brewer passed into law on 23 April. Senate Bill 1070, as amended, removed the offense of trespass, replaced "lawful contact" with "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest", and added the significant proviso that “a law enforcement official may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution”.

The principal advocate of these changes was Governor Brewer herself. When signing the Bill, she was at pains to point out, “My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law --- both against illegal immigration and racial profiling.”

Brewer added the wording of the law protecting against racial profiling was not, by itself, sufficient.  Recognizing that de facto implementation of a law usually varies from the de jure provisions contained within it, Governor Brewer declared that she was issuing an executive order stipulating Arizonan police officers were to be trained in how to implement SB 1070. Importantly, “This training will include what does – and does not – constitute ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is not legally present in the United States.”

Arizona is not the first place to pass this type of legislation. Prince William County in Virginia passed a similar ordinance three years ago. But, as Governor Brewer acknowledged, the stakes are much higher in Arizona. How the law works in her State will determine much of the future of immigration reform legislation in the United States. She maintained that supporters across the US of an open door policy or amnesty for settled illegal aliens will “have an interest in seeing us fail.”  The Governor ended her statement with a plea to her fellow Arizonans to “react calmly,” and “prove the alarmists and cynics wrong”.

One consequence of the amendments to the original Bill is that the legislation is now drawing criticism from conservatives. On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume commented that “this is a weak law”, arguing that federal immigration officers are allowed to stop an individual without reason to ascertain their residency status.

Amidst all the political debate surrounding the civil rights implications of SB 1070, the purpose of the law has been rarely mentioned. Advocates in Arizona argue that their state has experienced a rising violent crime rate in recent years, fuelled by the cartel wars in Mexico spilling over the unsecured border. The opening preamble to the law, in both the original and amended versions, “declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona”.

Supporters of the law assert that it is not meant to lead to mass deportations of illegal citizens. Instead, it has the primary focus of depriving them of work and forcing them to return to their country of origin from a lack of money. The majority of SB 1070's provisions, unnoticed by most, deal with strict enforcement of the federal regulations that prevent employers from using illegal labor.

This raises what be the most significant outcome of the law. Will the economically distressed individual or family return to a home country or will they just move from Arizona to a more accommodating state? If they do the latter, then we may find the consequences of SB 1070 are yet to be written. Arizona's law does not solve the problem of illegal immigration; it merely displaces the effects into neighboring states.

Comments

[Kurt]

Yes, the amended form is less problematic. I have read the bill, and yes, roughly over half deals with enforcement of labor laws. Although, considering the parts in question, constitutional issues can perhaps still be raised after the law goes into effect, depending on the discretion in which it is implemented (not to impugn LE officers as a whole, but how does someone 'look' illegal? It might only take a couple unfortunate incidents).

And; I can still not overlook the political motivations in Brewer embracing it with the upcoming gubernatorial election, even bringing down Sarah Palin to purportedly allay confusion. Nor can I forget the original sponsor, Russell Pearce, and his associations. Never mind Brewer's sketchy tenure as Secretary of State, before she was vaulted to her current position when Napolitano was plucked (Arizona has no Lt. Governor, though legislation was proposed to that effect this year).

And, I still have qualms over the thin line between de jure and de facto mentioned. The bill has been considerably defanged, but still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Along with efforts to do away with ethnic studies, and questioning teachers with accents, and Sheriff Arpaio's controversial career in Maricopa coupled with Babeu's new one in Pinal, this gives me a more disquieting suspicion of broader undertones in light of the nation's, especially Arizona's, shifting (legal) Latino demographics (whom vote Democrat roughly 2-1).

At best, this law is currently redundant in light of federal statute, and as The Arizona Republic, Tucson Mayor (R) and Yuma County Sheriff Ogden have questioned, the funds in cash-strapped Arizona for executing this, irrespective of cost from boycotts and lost retail revenue from neighboring Sonora, México (38% in Tucson alone), may make its most immediate practicable dividends seen in securing Republican primaries rather than border security.

Of course, proponents would argue that those who have illegally entered the country are the source of all economic woes and crime. They contribute, but an ubiquitous refrain of letters to the editor are that this state would be paradise "if only it weren't for them illegals." I find this an overly-simplistic sentiment. Economic stress, midterms and the Presidency of Barack Obama seem the more direct driving factors behind this legislation. It seems to have proved most useful as a vehicle for partisan debate, as it stands now.

P.S. It may be futile against the Lakers, but, ¡Viva Los Suns!

[thebearparty]

I got into some trouble in Arizona - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x6ujiRq7AM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x6ujiRq7AM

[Bill Davit]

The Irony of this whole mess is the willful ignorance of the Obama administration. Not only did the attorney general not read the Arizona bill before launching the administrations broadside they missed the little itsy bitsy detail is was sourced from US federal law. Instead they pounced on the liberal rant of this is racism forgetting the Arizona law is actually supported by the federal law. In essence the US was considering the act of actually suing itself over its own legislation. Wow breath taking!!!! Hopefully the Obama administration will pay attention to the polls that show the majority of Americans support the current immigration laws and not try to force it on us like they did the health care bill! Oh by the way I almost forgot the Obama administration actually withheld illegal alien reports showing hundereds of nationals from states identified as hot beds for terrorists!!! It took a reporter to get this info on the sly and then get it to his local congressman who had never seen it!!! Wow!!!

As a final note, while this contradicts my stance, I think we need to consider an amnesty for all those here already then enforce the immigration law with a vigor going forward!